Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Mr Paul Gauci, 46, managing director of Maltese distribution company Big Ben, told how, at the time of the Pan Am bombing, his company distributed clothing across the island to a number of shops, including one named in court as Mary's House. He identified a label from the fragment of a baby suit, displayed in court, and Abanderado T-shirts as similar to ones he had supplied to the Slima store.

This appears to relate to Zeist court proceedings on June 1st 2000. I'll need to have a trawl over the transcripts over the weekend, and see what significance all this may have in the discovery and later court production of the Blue Babygro - with the whole sheep motif on the chest, no, a lambs head on the pocket.

That report also deals with a certain Professor Christopher Peel and his cross-examination by the defence about his methods in determining the precise position and size of the bomb which downed Flight 103. Back in the London Theory thread I feel is more appropriate.

MR. CAMPBELL: My Lords, the next witness is number 598, Paul Gauci. I'm advised, My Lords, that Mr. Gauci will require the services of an interpreter, and accordingly, in order to hear the interpreter, earphones would require to be worn.

EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. CAMPBELL:
Q Mr. Gauci, what is your full name?
A Paul Gauci.

Is it a different Paul? Because this one was supposed to have NOT testified, at least regarding his football watching or his brother's meeting with the "bomber"

Quote:

Q Was one of the shops to which you distributed a shop called Mary's House in Tower Road in Sliema?
A Yes, it was.

Q What was the name of the proprietor of that shop?
A I don't understand what you are saying.

Q What was the name of the owner of the shop?
A The name was Edward Gauci.

In this instance, of all the 'coincidences' that this case throws up, bucking the trend this particular one does appear a genuine coincidence. In my ignorance, I hadn't really realised that Gauci seems to be a fairly common surname in Malta.

You would assume that if there had been any relation, even distant, between witness Paul Gauci, MD of Big Ben clothing, and the brothers who operated Mary's House, it would have been remarked at Zeist, by the defence team at least....wouldn't you?

While having a browse over the transcripts and digging around the web trying to make the distinction or connection between the Gauci's, I did note that Herr Bollier makes the claim that it is one and the same Paul, md at Big Ben, and co-owner of Mary's House on a number of occassions.

However, given his multifaceted background, and his very annoying carnival style coloured website, you have to been cynical at his possible motives in some of his claims, although there seems to be wealth of information he has his hands on and some excellents sources of court productions on his site.

You have to say that surely if Bollier's claim in this respect had had any substance whatsoever, someone else would have picked up on this matter about Paul.

My spidey-sense tingles like mad every time I think about the whole Gauci story.

Yes, I know, terrorists aren't smart and why shouldn't one of them have decided to puchase clothes for the bomb bag in such a remarkably conspicuous manner, yadda, yadda.... But honestly, this one is just bizarre. When you think of the numerous ways of getting hold of clothes that would be pretty much untraceable, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

*snip*
Rolfe.

It does sound strange. Unfortunately, in cases like this, we are really in a situation where we MUST point out a clown. Either the supposed terrorist did something very stupid, OR whoever orchestrated the thing to frame the supposed terrorist did.

The only other option is that we only have part of the truth, and those things that seem just too coincidental are really the result of some kind of, deliberate or not, cherry-picking of fragments of the whole story.

Hans

__________________If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.

It does sound strange. Unfortunately, in cases like this, we are really in a situation where we MUST point out a clown. Either the supposed terrorist did something very stupid, OR whoever orchestrated the thing to frame the supposed terrorist did.

The only other option is that we only have part of the truth, and those things that seem just too coincidental are really the result of some kind of, deliberate or not, cherry-picking of fragments of the whole story.

Hans

Despite all the reservations we may have over the actual purchase of all the clothing apparently packed around the bomb, I think what we're really striving for initially is the fact that, as oppose to the court's decision at Zeist, it is highly unlikely given the evidence supplied, together with the findings made by the SCCRC, that it could be determined 'beyond reasonable doubt' that it was Megrahi who was the buyer, and not possibly someone else altogether.

That is to say, we don't dispute the actual clothing purchase from Mary's shop, and it's part in the bomb bag, but it occurred on another date and thereby was made by another purchaser. Given the information and evidence that is available, it is simply inexplicable how the judges at Zeist arrived at their verdict on the buyer of the clothes being Megrahi, and the SCCRC were of the same thought in returning the case to the appeal court.

Also, given the contradictions and inconsistencies of the other crucial items of evidence that was presented in order to cement Megrahi's guilt, the fragment of timer, the Toshiba manual, the Erac printout, then it is only natural that we turn our attention to the contentions, and there are some, over the the actual purchase and whether it ever took place at all, and even the provenance of the clothing itself.

I'm agnostic on whether there was any one purchase and purchaser at all, or that the clothes all came from Mary's House. But I accept these as things not worth arguing.

But from the Gaucis' own best evidence, the alleged purchase does refer to real day, quite clearly and in numerous ways, and it's a day our Libyan villain was NOT on Malta. Can anyone contest the points made here?

(same ones made here as per date, but condensed - football matches, rainfall, christmas lights)

I don't think you can and I don't think anyone I'd take seriously can acknowledge all that and still believe Gauci's evidence supports Megrahi as the purchaser. He may still have been "the bomber" in some sense, but he didn't buy those clothes on that day, as so importantly charged.

ETA: Oh, and I'm not surprised the Swiss Cheese latched onto Paul the babygro-supplier notion. It is worth a double-take, but just takes it at first take and runs. So Bollier. He's even claimed he was handed the babygro himself, a gift for someone else that he added to a suitcase of Maltese clothes the Libyans had him carting around, didja know? That's Bollier!

ETA: ATTN MRC_Hans, in particular I'm curious what you think of date of purchase? Can you support the purchase being made by Megrahi on December 7, and if so, how?

In this instance, of all the 'coincidences' that this case throws up, bucking the trend this particular one does appear a genuine coincidence. In my ignorance, I hadn't really realised that Gauci seems to be a fairly common surname in Malta.

You would assume that if there had been any relation, even distant, between witness Paul Gauci, MD of Big Ben clothing, and the brothers who operated Mary's House, it would have been remarked at Zeist, by the defence team at least....wouldn't you?

Remember my initial confusion about the two different policemen involved with the case who had the surname Gilchrist. I initially assumed they were the same person, despite knowing that Gilchrist is a fairly common name in central/southern Scotland.

It does sound strange. Unfortunately, in cases like this, we are really in a situation where we MUST point out a clown. Either the supposed terrorist did something very stupid, OR whoever orchestrated the thing to frame the supposed terrorist did.

The only other option is that we only have part of the truth, and those things that seem just too coincidental are really the result of some kind of, deliberate or not, cherry-picking of fragments of the whole story.

I'm not yet convinced these are the only two options. Probably because I've not gone far enough into the other possibilities to be sure they're non-runners.

I don't think it's very reasonable to postulate that someone went into Gauci's shop on 23rd November (or 7th December) with the deliberate intention of being remembered, so that the purchase could later be pinned on a selected suspect. While I think it was foolhardy in the extreme to imagine Gaucu definitely wouldn't remember the purchase, I also think it would have been a bit of a long shot to assume that he would. Not a great prospect for a successful frame-up, really.

So, if the clothes were really purchased from the Gauci shop, I think it's more probable the purchaser was either one of the terrorists, or (conceivably) an innocent passenger on the plane whose luggage was close enough to the explosion to be mistakenly identified as being in the bomb suitcase itself.

While I appreciate there is some evidence said to pin down specific items in the list of things recovered to Gauci's shop, I haven't yet taken the time to check how reliable this actually is. My alternative suggestion is that the clothes originated from the Maltese factories who supplied Gauci, but were not necessarily purchased from him. However, when the investigators came to call, Gauci inadvertently connected the questions he was being asked to a purchase he happened to remember, and by a "Clever Hans" type of process, named the specific items the police were hoping to trace. We do know that interviews with Gauci were not conducted according to best practice and that a lot of leading questioning went on - both as regards what was purchased and what the purchaser looked like.

It may be possible to eliminate this hypothesis, but I haven't yet seen enough evidence to do that.

And yes, once we've established that there really was a purchaser around that time who bought these clothes from Gauci, as CL said, the evidence indicates that this person was not Megrahi.

Rolfe.

__________________"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

You still seem to be under the impression that I posted evidence. I did not. I posted speculation about what might actually be behind the Gauci evidence, if (as seems extremely likely) the person he apparently identified was not in fact the purchaser. This took the form of "brainstorming" as many possibilities as I could think of, including the frankly unlikely. Noting that a brainstorming session has come up with some unlikely scenarios doesn't negate the exercise as a whole.

It seems to me you aren't actually trying to figure out anything other than poke holes in what became the official story of the Lockerbie bombing. By doing so, you're making the same leap of faith as all conspiracy theorists must necessarily do: to believe that a few holes in a theory completely discredit the theory as a whole.

The evidence suggests, very strongly, that Megradi had motive, means and opportunity to carry out the attacks. Near as I can tell, no one else had the motive, means and opportunity to carry out the attacks. If that is true, he carried out the attack - no one else who could would want to.

The minimum you have to do in such a case is to produce a different suspect, who could, in theory, carry out the attacks. If you have done so, point me to your evidence and theory.

Quote:

We don't know what was going on in relation to that purchase. Looking at all considerations, including that fact that it was a strange thing to do, is not on the face of it unreasonable.

Again, the purchase wasn't strange at all. If he packed the bomb among his own clothes, someone could recognize it as his clothes. True, second hand clothing might be a better idea. Then again, it might not, since second hand stores typically have much less in the way of choice than stores selling new stuff, and it is more likely he would be remembered as someone who bought that particular piece of clothing. Chances for that are typically smaller by buying a new piece of clothing.

Quote:

You misunderstand. Asking you to defend the assertion that Megrahi purchased the clothes is not changing the subject, it is rewinding for the benefit of someone who has just come in. If Megrahi was indeed the purchaser, or probably the purchaser, then indeed speculation is a bit academic. However if he wasn't the purchaser, or probably wasn't the purchaser, then what do we have but speculation?

Your story is thus such:
We have a government agent of a country strongly supporting a nationalist cause, including terrorism. A terrorist attack occurs, originating in a country the said agent was based, using explosives that were avaiable to his country. The bomb used is of the same variety as has been used by the terrorists supported by the agents' country. The detonator alledgedly* used by the terrorist matches detonators used in terrorist attacks supported by the agents' country. The government agent was at the airport when the bag was first accepted by airport security. He left the country for his country of origin at the same time. But, because the testimony of someone who probably sold clothes that went next to the bomb is unreliable, it was all a conspiracy to frame the agent and his country.

*granted, the story here is suspect, so this very damning piece of evidence can be discarded for all I care

No, Rolfe, there is no significant speculation here, unless you can produce a different viable suspect, that would have the access to the explosive used, new clothes from Malta, technology to conceal the bomb in a Toshiba radio and a motive to blow up a plane over Lockerbie, Scotland and not come forward with any demands or something similar. Unless you can produce that, all you have is speculation.

Again, if you have done so before, please point me to your alternative theory.

Sorry McHrozni, not meaning to intervene on your joust with Rolfe, but can you please clarify exactly how "The evidence suggests, very strongly, that Megradi had motive, means and opportunity", and proves beyond reasonable doubt that this conviction is assured and correct?

Because, as this thread and the many others suggest, the evidence actually indicates the contrary. And yes, there was someone else, whom Gauci had also mentioned in his litany of statements, who had access to maltese clothes, the technology and expert associated who had been concealing the bombs precisely inside a Toshiba Radio, and plenty of ideological and financial motive. Abu Talb. But he's with Khreesat, the Jordanian/PLFP/CIA/...etc..etc asset/agent, so that's a no-go area.

I'm not yet convinced these are the only two options. Probably because I've not gone far enough into the other possibilities to be sure they're non-runners.

I don't think it's very reasonable to postulate that someone went into Gauci's shop on 23rd November (or 7th December) with the deliberate intention of being remembered, so that the purchase could later be pinned on a selected suspect. While I think it was foolhardy in the extreme to imagine Gaucu definitely wouldn't remember the purchase, I also think it would have been a bit of a long shot to assume that he would. Not a great prospect for a successful frame-up, really.

An absolutely horrible way to set up a frame-up. If Gauci would remember the man poorly, his testimony would be very weak as evidence. If he would remember him well, chances are he would say "yes, someone did buy this, but it wasn't your suspect". It's just not a risk anyone sane would take.

Quote:

So, if the clothes were really purchased from the Gauci shop, I think it's more probable the purchaser was either one of the terrorists, or (conceivably) an innocent passenger on the plane whose luggage was close enough to the explosion to be mistakenly identified as being in the bomb suitcase itself.

That's somewhat more reasonable.

What you're most likely missing is this: Gaucis' testimony is not the only thing implicating Mergahi. If he really saw Mergahi purchase those clothes, and can positively identify him, then it's very likely Mergahi is indeed the main cultprit. If he didn't, however, we can't say he isn't. Before you jump at me for this apperant contradiction, however, know that setting him up in that way is something entirely different from Mergadi actually buying the said clothes. If you're setting a man up, a positive identification is just about impossible to achieve. At best, you'll get a small but unnecessary boost to your case. At worst, you'll be found out.

Sorry McHrozni, not meaning to intervene on your joust with Rolfe, but can you please clarify exactly how "The evidence suggests, very strongly, that Megradi had motive, means and opportunity", and proves beyond reasonable doubt that this conviction is assured and correct?

That's a standard in an investigation, isn't it? You need to have a suspect with motive, means and opportunity. If you have that and circumstantial evidence supports he was the cultprit and you have no one else who could do the deed (means and opportunity) and nothing to exclude him, it's highly unlikely someone else was the cultprit.

Quote:

Because, as this thread and the many others suggest, the evidence actually indicates the contrary. And yes, there was someone else, whom Gauci had also mentioned in his litany of statements, who had access to maltese clothes, the technology and expert associated who had been concealing the bombs precisely inside a Toshiba Radio, and plenty of ideological and financial motive. Abu Talb. But he's with Khreesat, the Jordanian/PLFP/CIA/...etc..etc asset/agent, so that's a no-go area.

Really? What was his motive? Framing a Libyan agent?

I have checked some articles about him. He became a suspect because he was in Malta two months before the attack. It wasn't even established he was in Malta during the attack.
My personal theory is that he could very well be involved, but since this probably wasn't a one man job, I fail to see how this could exonorate Mergadi.

That's a standard in an investigation, isn't it? You need to have a suspect with motive, means and opportunity. If you have that and circumstantial evidence supports he was the cultprit and you have no one else who could do the deed (means and opportunity) and nothing to exclude him, it's highly unlikely someone else was the cultprit.

Yes, I agree that is absolutely the standards required, however that's not what I'm asking.

What is the "evidence, strongly suggesting" Megrahi's guilt that you are happy with?

Is it Gauci's identification?

This, despite all the other 'evidence' produced strongly suggesting the sale occurred on a day Megrahi could not have been the purchaser? Many feel this lends a greater suggestion than that presented by the prosecution and accepted by the court.

Maybe that Toshiba Radio's used to house the bomb were purchased in bulk by Libya?

That this fact alone thereby also strongly implicates Megrahi? Despite having not a shred of evidence that he ever purchased a Toshiba, is a premise beyond simple circumstantial evidence.

Perhaps the evidence that Megrahi placed the bomb-bag onboard an Air Malta flight at Luqa?

Well, as you, I, every single investigating official, the judges at Zeist and everyone else knows, there is not a shred of evidence supporting this either.

Or is it the discovery of the MST timer?

So, what do you contend is the irrefutable evidence with which there really is no point speculating any further about, and Megrahi's guilt is beyond reasonable doubt?

Quote:

Really? What was his motive? Framing a Libyan agent?

Financial reward appears to be the most inducing factor.

Quote:

I have checked some articles about him. He became a suspect because he was in Malta two months before the attack. It wasn't even established he was in Malta during the attack.
My personal theory is that he could very well be involved, but since this probably wasn't a one man job, I fail to see how this could exonorate Mergadi.

McHrozni

I was merely pointing out that there were others, contradicting your assertion, that had the means, motive and purpose to attack an american airliner.

I have checked some articles about him. He became a suspect because he was in Malta two months before the attack. It wasn't even established he was in Malta during the attack.
My personal theory is that he could very well be involved, but since this probably wasn't a one man job, I fail to see how this could exonorate Mergadi.

Um, it's "a little bit more complicated than that", by a metric mile. The name's usually rendered as Megrahi, by the way.

Could we stick to the subject of the thread? The subject of the thread is Tony Gauci and the "mystery shopper", the man who apparently bought the clothes from him which were found blast-damaged on the ground in Dumfriesshire. Other matters will no doubt come up as relevant, but we are actually focussing on the clothes purchase here.

If you read the thread, you may notice that all the regular posters have discounted the possibility that Megrahi was the purchaser. You seemed to be saying you think that's wrong, and that Megrahi actually was the purchaser. If you want to elaborate on that, then fire away.

If on the other hand you're saying that he wasn't the purchaser, but you believe he planted the bomb anyway, then that's actually a question for a different thread. Perhaps you could go there and explain to us what evidence you're left with that pins the crime on him, if you don't have Gauci's identification of him as the purchaser of these clothes to support your case.

Uh, yes he was. He was checking in for a flight to Tripoli at the next checkin desk to the one being used for KA180, at the same time. Whether that implicates him or exonerates him depends entirely on what you think of the significance of Bogomira Erac's souvenir printout.

However, again that has no direct relevance to the purchase of the clothes from Gauci's shop, which is what we're talking about here.

Rolfe.

__________________"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

It seems to me you aren't actually trying to figure out anything other than poke holes in what became the official story of the Lockerbie bombing. By doing so, you're making the same leap of faith as all conspiracy theorists must necessarily do: to believe that a few holes in a theory completely discredit the theory as a whole.

The evidence suggests, very strongly, that Megradi had motive, means and opportunity to carry out the attacks.

Uh, no. Please, please, please tell us about this "motive, means and opportunity". The motive that's suggested is that he was a Libyan intelligence agent acting under orders. I believe he was indeed a Libyan intelligence agent, though others have suggested that was never adequately proved. I know of no evidence at all to show that he was given orders to carry out this crime however.

Means? Could you elaborate? He was never shown to have been in posession of any of the components of the bomb, or indeed components of any bomb, or ever to have been involved in bomb-making. The only items in the bomb suitcase alleged to have been traced to him were the clothes apparently bought from Gauci, and it is this purchase we are specifically querying.

Opportunity? Could you elaborate, again? You appeared not even to know that he was at Luqa airport on the morning of the disaster. That might count as opportunity if you could show two things. First that the bomb did indeed pass through Luqa airport that morning, and second that Megrahi had an opportunity to introduce it. If you could actually show the former, we might even, perhaps, infer the latter. However, you really do have to elaborate on that.

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Near as I can tell, no one else had the motive, means and opportunity to carry out the attacks. If that is true, he carried out the attack - no one else who could would want to.

However, that simply isn't true.

Originally Posted by McHrozni

The minimum you have to do in such a case is to produce a different suspect, who could, in theory, carry out the attacks. If you have done so, point me to your evidence and theory.

That is a completely irrelevant point. It is not a requirement for a successful legal appeal against conviction that an alternative suspect must be identified. If the evidence that Megrahi didn't is not sufficient to support the conviction, then that fact stands on its own.

Again, the purchase wasn't strange at all. If he packed the bomb among his own clothes, someone could recognize it as his clothes. True, second hand clothing might be a better idea. Then again, it might not, since second hand stores typically have much less in the way of choice than stores selling new stuff, and it is more likely he would be remembered as someone who bought that particular piece of clothing. Chances for that are typically smaller by buying a new piece of clothing.

Even if we accept all that, the question you need to answer is, was Megrahi the person who did that?

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Your story is thus such:
We have a government agent of a country strongly supporting a nationalist cause, including terrorism. A terrorist attack occurs, originating in a country the said agent was based, using explosives that were avaiable to his country. The bomb used is of the same variety as has been used by the terrorists supported by the agents' country. The detonator alledgedly* used by the terrorist matches detonators used in terrorist attacks supported by the agents' country. The government agent was at the airport when the bag was first accepted by airport security. He left the country for his country of origin at the same time.

That's not my story, that's the allegations against Megrahi. You might like to look into the evidence for all of it, when you've a minute or six.

Originally Posted by McHrozni

But, because the testimony of someone who probably sold clothes that went next to the bomb is unreliable, it was all a conspiracy to frame the agent and his country.

Er, no. Do you think Megrahi bought those clothes or not? Because if he did, then he was part of the terrorist gang and you've proved your case, end of story.

However, if he didn't, just what evidence do you have left to support the proposal that he had anything to do with it?

Originally Posted by McHrozni

No, Rolfe, there is no significant speculation here, unless you can produce a different viable suspect, that would have the access to the explosive used, new clothes from Malta, technology to conceal the bomb in a Toshiba radio and a motive to blow up a plane over Lockerbie, Scotland and not come forward with any demands or something similar. Unless you can produce that, all you have is speculation.

For about the tenth time, it is possible be aware that someone convicted of a crime probably didn't do it, without knowing who did. Compare the Jill Dando murder, where it was perfectly possible to see that the evidence used to convict Barry George was beyond tenuous, without having the first clue who actually did it. The appeal court took that view, and George was released. The case has never been solved.

Quote:

access to [1] the explosive used, [2] new clothes from Malta, [3] technology to conceal the bomb in a Toshiba radio and [4] a motive to blow up a plane

OK, if you insist, once again.
[1] Ahmed Jibril had Semtex, a regular supply of the stuff
[2] Abu Talb had a house full of new clothes brought from Malta
[3] Marwan Khreesat was nicked by the German police in possession of a bomb he had concealed in a Toshiba radio
[4] Ahmed Jibril was paid about $10 million by the Iranian government, apparently relating to the offering of a reward for any group who would carry out the revenge desired for the shooting down of IA655 on 3rd July 1988 by the USS Vincennes.

But that's not the point. The evidence against Megrahi stands or falls on its own merits, irrespective of whether or not you have another suspect. We are not suggesting that Megrahi didn't do it because we are convinced Jibril et al. did. We are suggesting that Jibril et al. might have done it because the evidence that Megrahi did it is bordering on the laughable. Do you follow this?

Rolfe.

__________________"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

True, second hand clothing might be a better idea. Then again, it might not, since second hand stores typically have much less in the way of choice than stores selling new stuff, and it is more likely he would be remembered as someone who bought that particular piece of clothing. Chances for that are typically smaller by buying a new piece of clothing.

I'm just picking this out because I skipped it before.

First, the second-hand clothes shops I've seen have had piles and piles of random stuff. But that's not really the point.

You're not thinking. How was the blast-damaged clothing traced? Initially by a label on one of the items saying "Made in Malta". That enabled the investigators to trace the manufacturer, and subsequently the manufacturers of some of the other items, all on Malta. Because these items were very new, it was (apparently) possibly to discover which shop they had been supplied to, and then question the shopkeeper.

Suppose these had been second-hand clothes. How would they have been traced? First you have to find the manufacturer. OK, done that. Go and talk to him. These clothes are several years old, is it likely he's going to be able to tell you which shop he supplied them to? Probably not. But supposing he can tell you that, and you go to that shop. Several years have passed. How can you possibly identify the purchaser? This person is innocent, so flashing pictures of suspect bombers isn't going to help you. I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell you'd identify the original purchaser of second-hand clothes picked up in a charity shop that way.

But suppose you did.... Oh, it's not worth going on. The chances of anyone getting from the blast-damaged clothing, even with a manufacturer's label, to a particular charity shop, asking about purchases on a particular day, are negligible-to-non-existent.

McHrozni, will you think about this, instead of just throwing out random debunking noises for the sake of it! It's not a massive point, but it's emblematic of your dismissive attitude and lack of serious thought about the matter.

Rolfe.

__________________"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Could we stick to the subject of the thread? The subject of the thread is Tony Gauci and the "mystery shopper", the man who apparently bought the clothes from him which were found blast-damaged on the ground in Dumfriesshire. Other matters will no doubt come up as relevant, but we are actually focussing on the clothes purchase here.

Well, if you're going that way, all I can say is that check this stundie nomination:It is important to consider each idea in isolation for the best perception...

There is fairly little reason in looking at just one small bit of evidence and calling it in doubt. Yes, I do agree it is possible Mergadi wasn't the shopper. I also believe that all other evidence is fairly convincing in that he was involved in the operation. No, I don't believe he worked alone.

Quote:

Opportunity? Could you elaborate, again? You appeared not even to know that he was at Luqa airport on the morning of the disaster. That might count as opportunity if you could show two things. First that the bomb did indeed pass through Luqa airport that morning, and second that Megrahi had an opportunity to introduce it. If you could actually show the former, we might even, perhaps, infer the latter. However, you really do have to elaborate on that.

I did check out the story. Him being definitively placed on Luqa airport when the bomb was placed on the plane opens plentiful possibilities. Again, no, I don't believe he acted alone.

You do demand an unreasonable standard of evidence, however. It's fairly obvious I won't be able to show that. However since you can't even place your alternative suspect on Malta within a month of the attack, I don't really see why I should.

Means? Could you elaborate? He was never shown to have been in posession of any of the components of the bomb, or indeed components of any bomb, or ever to have been involved in bomb-making. The only items in the bomb suitcase alleged to have been traced to him were the clothes apparently bought from Gauci, and it is this purchase we are specifically querying.

He was an agent of the Libyan government. Libyan government had a history of sponsoring terror bombings, and was in posession of explosives and the technology to produce the bomb like the one that destroyed the plane over Lockerbie. That is means and a motive (government mission) without any further investigation.
I already covered opportunity as far as I can in an earlier post.

Quote:

That is a completely irrelevant point. It is not a requirement for a successful legal appeal against conviction that an alternative suspect must be identified. If the evidence that Megrahi didn't is not sufficient to support the conviction, then that fact stands on its own.

Perhaps, but then again, we aren't in a law trial, but in a forum, debating the evidence in favor or against his conviction. Thus far the only thing standing against his conviction is that some of the evidence favoring it is in doubt.

That may (or may not) be enough for you to win a trial, but we do know a trial result doesn't guarantee the judgment was fair and lawful.

Quote:

Even if we accept all that, the question you need to answer is, was Megrahi the person who did that?

I think he was a critical component in the plot. For example, I do find it fairly plausible that Iranians cooperated with Libyan agents to blow up a western airliner.

Quote:

Er, no. Do you think Megrahi bought those clothes or not? Because if he did, then he was part of the terrorist gang and you've proved your case, end of story.

The evidence that he did is in doubt. That does not mean it is wrong. There is no evidence that it was someone else doing the shopping.

Quote:

However, if he didn't, just what evidence do you have left to support the proposal that he had anything to do with it?

The fact he was a Libyan agent covers a substantial amount, as seen above, especially since the said bomb was fairly in line with many other Libyan actions.

Quote:

For about the tenth time, it is possible be aware that someone convicted of a crime probably didn't do it, without knowing who did. Compare the Jill Dando murder, where it was perfectly possible to see that the evidence used to convict Barry George was beyond tenuous, without having the first clue who actually did it. The appeal court took that view, and George was released. The case has never been solved.

I'm not familiar with that case, but the circle of suspects here isn't very wide at all. I suspect this was different in the murder case you're pulling out as an example?

Quote:

OK, if you insist, once again.
[1] Ahmed Jibril had Semtex, a regular supply of the stuff
[2] Abu Talb had a house full of new clothes brought from Malta
[3] Marwan Khreesat was nicked by the German police in possession of a bomb he had concealed in a Toshiba radio
[4] Ahmed Jibril was paid about $10 million by the Iranian government, apparently relating to the offering of a reward for any group who would carry out the revenge desired for the shooting down of IA655 on 3rd July 1988 by the USS Vincennes.

None of the said connections to the crime are stronger than Megradis'. I explicitly stated I didn't believe he acted alone, I think?

Quote:

But that's not the point. The evidence against Megrahi stands or falls on its own merits, irrespective of whether or not you have another suspect.

Well, if you're going that way, all I can say is that check this stundie nomination:It is important to consider each idea in isolation for the best perception...

There is fairly little reason in looking at just one small bit of evidence and calling it in doubt. Yes, I do agree it is possible Mergadi wasn't the shopper. I also believe that all other evidence is fairly convincing in that he was involved in the operation. No, I don't believe he worked alone.

Just a small comment, but the name is usually rendered Megrahi.

I don't have the slightest problem looking at any particular piece of evidence, or at the case as a whole. However, this thread is entitled "Tony Gauci and the mystery shopper". So far, you've offered no discussion at all as regards the subject of the thread!

You've suggested that it isn't at all odd that a terrorist might purchase clothes to pack round a bomb in this way. That's fine. Most people, almost everybody in fact, thinks it's probable that a terrorist did exactly that. That doesn't at all illuminate whether or not the purchaser was Megrahi.

You've suggested that even if Megrahi wasn't the purchaser, you still think he was involved in the bombing. Fine. However, it's simply off topic for this thread. There is another thread discussing the totality of the affair, or we could even start a new one if you like. But this thread is about the Gauci evidence.

Originally Posted by McHrozni

I did check out the story. Him being definitively placed on Luqa airport when the bomb was placed on the plane opens plentiful possibilities. Again, no, I don't believe he acted alone.

Er, no. There is NO evidence that the bomb was introduced into the system at Luqa. It's as certain as reasonably can be that it wasn't. So much so that Air Malta was successful in two legal actions against media allegations that it was.

This is currently the subject of discussion in another thread. While of course it's all inter-related, it's very difficult to keep things straight if you insist in arguing points completely out of the relevant threads.

Originally Posted by McHrozni

You do demand an unreasonable standard of evidence, however. It's fairly obvious I won't be able to show that. However since you can't even place your alternative suspect on Malta within a month of the attack, I don't really see why I should.

Again, I would agree both were probably involved.

This is getting tedious. I only mentioned Jibril's group because you were so insistent on having an alternative suspect. I'll say it one more time. There is absolutely no reason at all in the wide world for it to be necessary to have another suspect, in order to question whether Megrahi had anything to do with it.

Why is it necessary to place Abu Talb on Malta within a month of the attacks, in order to believe that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi didn't buy the clothes from Gauci? You're not making any sense at all. (If you're really interested, you could look at the evidence supporting the allegation that Abu Talb was in Malta on 23rd November.)

Please, could we discuss the purchase of the clothes in this thread, and take the rest of it elsewhere?

Rolfe.

__________________"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

I don't have the slightest problem looking at any particular piece of evidence, or at the case as a whole. However, this thread is entitled "Tony Gauci and the mystery shopper". So far, you've offered no discussion at all as regards the subject of the thread!

You've suggested that it isn't at all odd that a terrorist might purchase clothes to pack round a bomb in this way. That's fine. Most people, almost everybody in fact, thinks it's probable that a terrorist did exactly that. That doesn't at all illuminate whether or not the purchaser was Megrahi.

You seemed to think the purchases indicate it couldn't be him. I've shown that is not the case.

Quote:

But this thread is about the Gauci evidence.

Gauci evidence by itself is questionable. It is, however, consistent with the other evidence. Note that questionable does not mean the information is necessarily wrong.

Quote:

I'll say it one more time. There is absolutely no reason at all in the wide world for it to be necessary to have another suspect, in order to question whether Megrahi had anything to do with it.

Questioning is rational. Claiming it wasn't him is not. The first is, however, sufficient for a court of law, which is probably what caused this little spat of ours.

The way I see it, you have three options:
1) Megrahi was an actor in it, the investigation was largely correct
2) Megrahi wasn't an actor it, but there is a connection with Malta and Libyan explosives
3) the investigation was completely wrong

Option 2) would require a different primary suspect in Malta, whereas option 3) would require a complete revision of the way investigations are conducted in Scotland.

Quote:

Why is it necessary to place Abu Talb on Malta within a month of the attacks, in order to believe that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi didn't buy the clothes from Gauci?

Because if you're claiming the Maltese connection is correct, but Megrahi wasn't the cultprit and Abu Talb is a viable cultprit, you need to put the latter man at the scene of the crime at least. He was in Malta two months prior to the attacks, but came home and brought a large collection of clothes from Malta with him. Unless you can show he went back to Malta, he has a rather good alibi by being over 2000km away. If his alibi holds true, then very little evidence connecting Abu Talb to the crime would help Megrahi.

Again, there is no reason to expect Megrahi - or anyone else - acted alone.

Quote:

You're not making any sense at all. (If you're really interested, you could look at the evidence supporting the allegation that Abu Talb was in Malta on 23rd November.)

Perhaps. But what you really need is him on Malta at least within the maximum time that the timer could still be set. That's about 1 week, right?
The actual time is probably lower, and a day or two at the most.

He was an agent of the Libyan government. Libyan government had a history of sponsoring terror bombings, and was in posession of explosives and the technology to produce the bomb like the one that destroyed the plane over Lockerbie. That is means and a motive (government mission) without any further investigation.
I already covered opportunity as far as I can in an earlier post.

He was an agent of the Libyan government. Check. The Libyan government has a history of sponsoring terrorist attacks. Check.

Could you maybe think about how many agents even Libya has (or had at that time)? And then again how many governments have a history of sponsoring terrorist attacks - and I wouldn't limit that to governments either, how many terrorist groups there are on the planet?

You're going to have to do better than that.

You have no evidence at all that Megrahi was given a government mission to destroy that airliner. That is pure speculation in your part.

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Perhaps, but then again, we aren't in a law trial, but in a forum, debating the evidence in favor or against his conviction.

Excuse me, but you've got this the wrong way round. We're on an internet forum, not in a court of law. Why, therefore, do you put more stringent conditions on the evidence you'll consider? Even a court wouldn't demand the production of an alternative suspect before considering the possible innocence of an accused person, so why are you demanding it?

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Thus far the only thing standing against his conviction is that some of the evidence favoring it is in doubt.

Uh, yes. That's usually what leads to convictions being overturned, you know.

Originally Posted by McHrozni

That may (or may not) be enough for you to win a trial, but we do know a trial result doesn't guarantee the judgment was fair and lawful.

Now you're getting it. Megrahi was convicted by a (very unorthodox) court. However, as we know, a trial result doesn't guarantee the verdict is correct. That's what we're talking about, you're on-topic at last!

Originally Posted by McHrozni

I think he was a critical component in the plot. For example, I do find it fairly plausible that Iranians cooperated with Libyan agents to blow up a western airliner.

I've come across this suggestion before. I don't recall any actual evidence being produced then either. It would be interesting to debate the possibility, but not in a thread on the subject of the mystery shopper!!

Originally Posted by McHrozni

The evidence that he did is in doubt. That does not mean it is wrong. There is no evidence that it was someone else doing the shopping.

Sigh. At last. An on-topic remark. Please, please, tell us why you think it was Megrahi who bought these clothes! That's what we've been asking, post after post.

I haven't a clue who bought the bloody clothes from Gauci. I'm not even 100% certain it was one of the terrorists who blew up the airliner. Once more, there is no requirement at all to have an alternative candidate to be able to rule out Megrahi, on the evidence available.

Please explain why you think he was the purchaser. Please! Just - "I don't see why it shouldn't have been him" isn't really good enough.

Originally Posted by McHrozni

The fact he was a Libyan agent covers a substantial amount, as seen above, especially since the said bomb was fairly in line with many other Libyan actions.

Come on, that's beyond circumstantial. If you have actual evidence, then of course that's relevant, but that on its own is NOT evidence.

Originally Posted by McHrozni

I'm not familiar with that case, but the circle of suspects here isn't very wide at all. I suspect this was different in the murder case you're pulling out as an example?

Sorry, we were discussing that on another thread, and I mistakenly thought you'd been involved in that discussion. The circle of suspects in that case was a circle indeed. A very round number in fact. 0. Nevertheless, an implausible case was cobbled together against George, who happened to have been around the scene at approximately the right time. Amazingly enough, the jury bought it. George was freed when the conviction was quashed on appeal. Nobody has any idea who carried out that murder. You seem to be in the position of saying that we can't question George's guilt because we don't have another suspect. Wrong. George's guilt can be questioned on the grounds that the evidence against him was pathetic. The same applies here.

Originally Posted by McHrozni

None of the said connections to the crime are stronger than Megradis'. I explicitly stated I didn't believe he acted alone, I think?

M-e-g-r-a-h-i. Nobody ever suggested he acted alone, but the only other person accused was acquitted as no case to answer. Which is another little problem, because what Megrahi was supposed to have done on 21st December wasn't actually possible without an accomplice, and they acquitted the suggested accomplice and didn't produce an alternative.

Again, we can debate the PFLP-GC in another thread. But, IT IS IN NO WAY NECESSARY TO HAVE ANY IDEA WHO COMMITTED A CRIME, IN ORDER TO DOUBT THE GUILT OF THE PERSON ACCUSED.

So, it's not necessary in a court of law to have an alternative suspect before you can challenge an unsafe conviction. Why do you demand this, when we're not even in a court?

Look, I think it's unfair to ask you to go to the general thread about the case as a whole to discuss this. The thread was started in 2007, and doesn't really get coherent until many pages in. So I propose to start a new thread specifically for you to discuss your belief that Megrahi was involved in this bombing. If I do that, will you stick to the Gauci purchase in this thread?

Rolfe.

__________________"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

You seemed to think the purchases indicate it couldn't be him. I've shown that is not the case.

You call that addressing the evidence? All you did was say, "I don't see why it couldn't have been like that," without apparently even knowing what the evidence was.

I explained to you several times that I did not suggest that the purchases indicated that Megrahi couldn't have been the purchaser. As I said at the start, I was beginning from the premise that the purchaser wasn't Megrahi, and trying to figure out alternative possibilities. You've "shown" nothing.

The proposition that it couldn't have been Megrahi has nothing at all to do with the items purchased. It's related to whether or not it might have been raining in the evening of 7th December, to what time of day a certain football match was played, and the date the Christmas lights were lit. I've linked to all this half a dozen times. What makes you think the purchase Gauci described took place on 7th December, rather than on 23rd November?

The supplementary proposition that it probably wasn't Megrahi irrespective of the day of the purchase is related to Gauci's original description of the purchaser. Again, I've linked to a number of discussions of this aspect in previous posts. What makes you think it was Megrahi Gauci was trying to describe?

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Gauci evidence by itself is questionable. It is, however, consistent with the other evidence. Note that questionable does not mean the information is necessarily wrong.

Questioning is rational. Claiming it wasn't him is not. The first is, however, sufficient for a court of law, which is probably what caused this little spat of ours.

So where do we go? I don't think it was him, and I can marshal some pretty good arguments to support that. You think it was him, but all you've offered so far is that you won't consider the alternative unless I can produce a different suspect (which is irrational), and the platitude that just because evidence is weak doesn't mean its wrong.

I don't think the fact that Megrahi was convicted means he did it. You don't think that a successful appeal would mean he didn't. Stalemate. Unless you actually look at some actual evidence.

Originally Posted by McHrozni

The way I see it, you have three options:
1) Megrahi was an actor in it, the investigation was largely correct
2) Megrahi wasn't an actor it, but there is a connection with Malta and Libyan explosives
3) the investigation was completely wrong

Option 2) would require a different primary suspect in Malta, whereas option 3) would require a complete revision of the way investigations are conducted in Scotland.

Possibly 2, possibly 3. The clothes found in Dumfriesshire came from Malta at some point, so there's definitely that connection with Malta. Whether there's any other connection with Malta is very questionable. As I said, I'm not even 100% certain that these clothes were purchased by one of the terrorists, whichever terrorist group we're talking about.

Libyan explosives? Well, Libya was practically acting as quartermaster to the world's terrorists at the time, so Libyan-sourced munitions wouldn't really be a terribly unlikely thing. But by that argument, Megrahi carried out the Omagh boming and maybe Eniskillin and Warrington as well.

So, there were clothes of Maltese manufacture, and I wouldn't exclude munitions having been sourced via Libya at some stage. That's all the connection the evidence really supports.

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Because if you're claiming the Maltese connection is correct, but Megrahi wasn't the cultprit and Abu Talb is a viable cultprit, you need to put the latter man at the scene of the crime at least. He was in Malta two months prior to the attacks, but came home and brought a large collection of clothes from Malta with him. Unless you can show he went back to Malta, he has a rather good alibi by being over 2000km away. If his alibi holds true, then very little evidence connecting Abu Talb to the crime would help Megrahi.

Again, there is no reason to expect Megrahi - or anyone else - acted alone.

Perhaps. But what you really need is him on Malta at least within the maximum time that the timer could still be set. That's about 1 week, right?
The actual time is probably lower, and a day or two at the most.

Ah, I see where you're coming from. I hadn't realised your misunderstanding was quite so complete.

One, the MST-13 timer, if that was indeed what triggered the explosion, could have been set six months or more in advance. I can't remember the exact time, but it was long.

Two, the bomb almost certainly never went anywhere near Malta.

Rolfe.

__________________"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Welcome back M! I do note and give props that you seem to have studies up some more. Welcome back M! I do note and give props that you seem to have studied up some more. Oooh, a wee bit more, reading on ahead. Again, M-E-G-R-A-H-I, not Megradi. I appreciate that someone here is trying, but … And might I say you've thus stimulated some new discussion in short order, which usually happens when folks are having to repeat themselves! Stick with it, please, but do also slow down a bit and listen. It's really quite interesting to learn as well as (try to) teach. I for one am listening to you, mate.

Quote:

The evidence suggests, very strongly, that Megradi had motive, means and opportunity to carry out the attacks. Near as I can tell, no one else had the motive, means and opportunity to carry out the attacks. If that is true, he carried out the attack - no one else who could would want to.

So far you can only tell very, very near.

Quote:

It seems to me you aren't actually trying to figure out anything other than poke holes in what became the official story of the Lockerbie bombing. By doing so, you're making the same leap of faith as all conspiracy theorists must necessarily do: to believe that a few holes in a theory completely discredit the theory as a whole.

Hmmm...

Problem is, the case is in fact only made up of a few pieces of evidence, plus some unverifiable intelligence as connective tissue. And the holes we’ve been poking in the case are the same size and location of those few points of evidence. That really doesn’t leave much, but that’s a discussion best left for another thread.

In this particular thread we’re poking another very large hole in the case against Megrahi (which really is the case against Libya, or 90% of it).

Quote:

An absolutely horrible way to set up a frame-up. If Gauci would remember the man poorly, his testimony would be very weak as evidence. If he would remember him well, chances are he would say "yes, someone did buy this, but it wasn't your suspect". It's just not a risk anyone sane would take.

For my part I don’t buy an actual pre-arranged frame-up of Megrahi, or whatever this is driving at. Gauci clearly describes the day November 23 is all that's certain. He could have been led with money and leading questions to slowly affirm the clothes found to match what was sold. In fact, hasn't thaat been established? He chnages story on height, age, rainfall, Christmas lights...

Quote:

Again, the purchase wasn't strange at all. If he packed the bomb among his own clothes, someone could recognize it as his clothes. True, second hand clothing might be a better idea. Then again, it might not, since second hand stores typically have much less in the way of choice than stores selling new stuff, and it is more likely he would be remembered as someone who bought that particular piece of clothing. Chances for that are typically smaller by buying a new piece of clothing.

Now, if you'd read very deeply at all (do at least find the "Opinion of the Court" PDF) you'd know one key thing that made Gauci remember this dude was how he didn't care much what he grabbed. How does a 2nd shop (large and anonymous is better here too) not have enough random clothing to stuff a suitcase?

The logic of the alleged purchase is moot by now, fairly irrelevant. We have Tony’s memory which has only one reliable date that could work and it clears al Megrahi of the clothing purchase.

Can you agree on that point, with a simple affirmation, and spare us the long spiel on what that does or doesn't prove? The simplest way to put the question is "The day Gauci identifies for the purchase is November 23, NOT December 7, is it not?"
You can check your sources to see what’s left of the case against Megrahi specificallyafter the Dec 7 purchase is eliminated. Wikipedia will do in a pinch.

We could go into the official constructs of motive, means, and opportunity, compared to what we’re showing in this thread, compare evidence for and against. Indeed if one accepts the timer (or actually questions it some), the clothes, the RT-SF16 radio, the sighting of Megrahi at Malta airport w/brown Samsonite on 12/21 (please say you don't buy that one), the airport records showing a bag from there going onto 103, etc. then that is a damning case compared to some “ambiguity” over the Gauci I.D.

But then you would have to be trumped again by the evidence for and against the London intro theory vs. the pros and cons of the Malta intro theory, and the motive, means, and opportunities of the non-Libyans who appear involved in the clear winner there.

But this the thread on the Gauci identification. You might want to at least skim the thread preceding this page before you're in a position to even offer an educated response to the simple question, again "The day Gauci identifies for the purchase is November 23, NOT December 7, is it not?"

You call that addressing the evidence? All you did was say, "I don't see why it couldn't have been like that," without apparently even knowing what the evidence was.

I explained to you several times that I did not suggest that the purchases indicated that Megrahi couldn't have been the purchaser. As I said at the start, I was beginning from the premise that the purchaser wasn't Megrahi, and trying to figure out alternative possibilities. You've "shown" nothing.

A lot of what you asked initially was strongly implying that Megrahi was being framed, by unknown people, for unknown reasons. As I have shown the behavior was fairly sensible for a terrorist.

Again, I do agree that the evidence in favor of Megrahi is circumstantial and often weak. However, no one suits the profile better. I won't say that this proves his guilt, I won't say it is enough for a conviction, but it is enough to say he was most likely a key player in the attack.

Quote:

So where do we go? I don't think it was him, and I can marshal some pretty good arguments to support that. You think it was him, but all you've offered so far is that you won't consider the alternative unless I can produce a different suspect (which is irrational), and the platitude that just because evidence is weak doesn't mean its wrong.

Well, do you have stronger evidence in favor of a completely different story?

Quote:

Libyan explosives? Well, Libya was practically acting as quartermaster to the world's terrorists at the time, so Libyan-sourced munitions wouldn't really be a terribly unlikely thing. But by that argument, Megrahi carried out the Omagh boming and maybe Eniskillin and Warrington as well.

Again the "it's best to investigate each piece of evidence by itself for best perception" reasoning. No, explosives by themselves don't show Libyan secret services were directly involved.

Quote:

One, the MST-13 timer, if that was indeed what triggered the explosion, could have been set six months or more in advance. I can't remember the exact time, but it was long.

Aha. It's a minor blow, but so minor it's not worth mentioning. The longer the delay is the more likely it is various delays will cause it to explode prematurely. Flights can be canceled, flights can be delayed by a fairly long time. Any sensible operation would have the timer set just before departing for the airport, maybe slightly earlier, but certainly not a very long time before that. Certainly not three days, most certainly not a month.

.....
Well, do you have stronger evidence in favor of a completely different story?
.....
Do you have evidence it went from somewhere else?
......

I lack the admirable patience of other posters in this thread, so I'll just point out that this form of argument (one you have regularly used here) is illogical and massively irritating. In fact it's probably a known and named logical fallacy, though I don't know what that name might be.

I lack the admirable patience of other posters in this thread, so I'll just point out that this form of argument (one you have regularly used here) is illogical and massively irritating. In fact it's probably a known and named logical fallacy, though I don't know what that name might be.

You probably meant argument from ignorance.

It isn't an argument from ignorance, because there is evidence - weak, but it is there - that the bomb originated in Malta. If there is no evidence it originated from somewhere else - and I am not aware of any, that's why I'm asking for it - it is unreasonable to assume it didn't come from Malta. It could have. It is possible it didn't.
Do you understand what I'm saying? If there is weak evidence for A and no evidence for B, you can't argue B is correct and A is wrong by saying evidence for A is weak.

It isn't an argument from ignorance, because there is evidence - weak, but it is there - that the bomb originated in Malta. If there is no evidence it originated from somewhere else - and I am not aware of any, that's why I'm asking for it - it is unreasonable to assume it didn't come from Malta. It could have. It is possible it didn't.
Do you understand what I'm saying? If there is weak evidence for A and no evidence for B, you can't argue B is correct and A is wrong by saying evidence for A is weak.

McHrozni

McHronzi, we all welcome other opinions, especially when there is a real dearth of anyone supporting the 'Megrahi was guilty' assertion. Even after a casual glance over the whole story of Lockerbie, most people, and some highly learned and having profound knowledge on these matters, are wholly unconvinced by the usual arguments that the court made their decision and that's that. End of story. Once one has deliberated over the actual evidence, this cynicism is simply strengthened. Please try and familiarize yourself with the wider aspects of the whole tragedy, even when trying to specifically deal with one area of the investigation and crowns case against Megrahi. Be warned, it's a very, very wide picture. However, the crucial aspects of evidence that were presented, and the Zeist judgement along with the SCCRC decision are not that lengthy and can provide a broad brush picture initially.

Now, with regards to your point above.

There is no evidence the "bomb" originated in Malta. There is somewhat highly disputed and inconsistent evidence that the clothes may have originated in Malta, but again I reiterate, there is no evidence whatsoever [NONE] that the "bomb" originated in Malta. You're making a huge and and rather fatuous connection that because there is some evidence (of which we are discussing) that the clothes appear to have been made and possibly purchased in Malta, then the bomb must have been introduced there too!! What?? This is a leap of logic where there is no knowledge to base this logic upon.

If we are to follow this obviously flawed logic, the timer used in the bomb was apparently made in Switzerland, could this suggest the bomb was loaded in Zurich?

The Samsonite suitcase that housed the bomb was of an American make, could this mean the bomb originated in the US?

The Radio.....etc...etc, I assume you're catching on here.

There is another highly disputed piece of evidence which was claimed to show an unaccompanied bag arriving at Frankfurt from Malta, but if you care to examine all the details as to what this document actually shows and how it came to be produced, you can quite clearly see that this is yet another huge leap of logic.

There is strong evidence, far far stronger that the official Malta theory, that the bomb may well have originated fronm another place and inserted at another airport, but that, at this moment, in this thread, is not the issue.

Now, knowing there is no evidence that the "bomb" originated in Malta, we are currently speculating over the apparent evidence given at Zeist in which a shop owner claimed that he had sold the clothes to someone. Giving a litany of different descriptions of the buyer, he eventually, vaguely, made an identification - of Megrahi. However, given the financial inducement that he was aware of for a successful conviction, together with the highly inconsistent statements, it is reasonable to doubt the sincerity of this 'evidence'.

So, which areas of Gauci's statements do you agree with, and how do you explain his, and his brothers, changing stories and contradictory statements?

A lot of what you asked initially was strongly implying that Megrahi was being framed, by unknown people, for unknown reasons. As I have shown the behavior was fairly sensible for a terrorist.

I can't tell if I originally expressed myself badly, or if you jumped to the wrong conclusion simply because you are very unfamiliar with the case, and the various directions speculation is taking the discussion.

There is a CT which suggests Megrahi was deliberately set up in advance. That being so, it's only reasonable to mention it in any discussion of what actually happened in Mary's House in late 1988. I don't think the suggestion has any merit whatsoever, and whenever I mentioned the idea I think you'll find I said so.

If you actually read my posts, you'll realise I was backing an entirely different horse. It may be an outsider, and evidence may exist to turn it into a non-runner. But I certainly wasn't backing the one where the purchase was made with the intention of setting up Megrahi.

And you certainly haven't shown that the purchase was a sensible thing for a terrorist to do. Your dismissal of the second-hand shop source demonstrated a distressing absence of rational thought. Of course, just because it wasn't a sensible thing to do doesn't mean someone didn't do it. However, it was still a very peculiar thing to do.

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Again, I do agree that the evidence in favor of Megrahi is circumstantial and often weak. However, no one suits the profile better. I won't say that this proves his guilt, I won't say it is enough for a conviction, but it is enough to say he was most likely a key player in the attack.

Um, so you think the conviction was unsound, but you still think he did it? This idea of the "profile" seems quite ridiculous to me. Megrahi has no known background in explosives, has never been shown to have constructed an IED, and has never been associated in any way with any other terrorist attack. He was no back-street plotter. He was an educated man, with a responsible job as Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Libya.

You're familiar with the personal details of all the members of all the assorted terrorist cells scattered throughout Europe and the Middle East, so much so that you believe this guy, and this guy only, has the "profile" to have carried out this attack?

You actually don't know very much at all about this case, every post you make demonstrates that quite clearly. How you imagine you can intuit guilt by "profile" under these circumstances, I simply can't imagine. Next you'll be telling me he did a cartwheel in the police station!

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Well, do you have stronger evidence in favor of a completely different story?

This is getting ridiculous. I'll say it again. Do you have any evidence as to who killed Jill Dando? No? Does that mean Barry George did it? If the evidence against person A doesn't stand up, then it doesn't stand up. Whether you have evidence against any person B is irrelevant. You have to stand back and admit you don't know.

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Again the "it's best to investigate each piece of evidence by itself for best perception" reasoning. No, explosives by themselves don't show Libyan secret services were directly involved.

It's necessary to analyse the evidence in detail before trying to synthesise it into a coherent whole. We've got several threads looking at different aspects of the evidence, and while of course it's all inter-related, everybody else seems to manage to stay more or less on topic. This thread is about the Gauci evidence and the Maltese clothes. Persistent derailing it into all and any aspect of the case that catches your eye is not constructive. I've started a new thread for you to bring together all the various aspects of the evidence you feel support the case against Megrahi, you could always post in it.

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Aha. It's a minor blow, but so minor it's not worth mentioning. The longer the delay is the more likely it is various delays will cause it to explode prematurely. Flights can be canceled, flights can be delayed by a fairly long time. Any sensible operation would have the timer set just before departing for the airport, maybe slightly earlier, but certainly not a very long time before that. Certainly not three days, most certainly not a month.

You're not really thinking this through, are you? It doesn't matter when the timer was set, the suitcase had to be put on the plane. I can't see any scenario where the thing could have been lying around the airport for days or weeks, to be picked up by an innocent baggage handler that morning. This simply doesn't happen. So far as I know, luggage wasn't even checked in for that flight the night before - it would all have been checked in in the morning of the 21st.

IF the bomb suitcase can be proved to have been put on board at Luqa, then the person who did that was at Luqa airport that morning. It would make Megrahi a very serious suspect, even if you couldn't find anything else to pin it on him.

If.

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Do you have evidence it went from somewhere else?

There is more than one thread on this incident, as I've mentioned several times.

It isn't an argument from ignorance, because there is evidence - weak, but it is there - that the bomb originated in Malta. If there is no evidence it originated from somewhere else - and I am not aware of any, that's why I'm asking for it - it is unreasonable to assume it didn't come from Malta. It could have. It is possible it didn't.
Do you understand what I'm saying? If there is weak evidence for A and no evidence for B, you can't argue B is correct and A is wrong by saying evidence for A is weak.

Well, you are making argument from ignorance, I think, when you declare that you aren't aware of any other credible suspects, or of any evidence that the bomb suitcase went on board elsewhere than in Malta.

No doubt it's true you're not aware of these things. It doesn't mean they don't exist though, or even that they aren't being discussed in detail in other threads right here in this forum.

However, I don't think that's what GlenB meant. He was referring to this constant demand for another suspect or explanation before you would even entertain any discussion of the flaws in the evidence against Megrahi.

It's gradually becoming clear that you actually believe it's impossible for anyone else to have carried out this bombing. (Space ship! Sheesh!)

Epic fail.

If you think you can make a credible case that there is literally no rational possibility that anyone but Megrahi put the bomb on that plane, carry on.

Rolfe.

__________________"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

It isn't an argument from ignorance, because there is evidence - weak, but it is there - that the bomb originated in Malta. If there is no evidence it originated from somewhere else - and I am not aware of any, that's why I'm asking for it - it is unreasonable to assume it didn't come from Malta. It could have. It is possible it didn't.

No, not 'argument from ignorance', more a mulish adherence to a discredited and highly unlikely theory because a specifically better theory hasn't been proposed.

This approach can be mistaken for the scientific method, but it isn't.

An illustration - there was a time when folks thought that food spoilage was spontaneous. Mould, maggots etc. It was believed these things sprang up out of nowhere or were inherent and waiting in the food, even cooked food. Then someone had the bright idea of boiling some beef broth and rapidly sealing the container while still hot. The broth didn't spoil (they had discovered a form of canning, in effect). The 'spontaneous generation of spoiling agents' was disproved. Yet they had no idea what did cause the mould and maggots. It seems you would have clung to the 'spontaneous maggot' theory, for want of something better.

No, not 'argument from ignorance', more a mulish adherence to a discredited and highly unlikely theory because a specifically better theory hasn't been proposed.

This approach can be mistaken for the scientific method, but it isn't.

An illustration - there was a time when folks thought that food spoilage was spontaneous. Mould, maggots etc. It was believed these things sprang up out of nowhere or were inherent and waiting in the food, even cooked food. Then someone had the bright idea of boiling some beef broth and rapidly sealing the container while still hot. The broth didn't spoil (they had discovered a form of canning, in effect). The 'spontaneous generation of spoiling agents' was disproved. Yet they had no idea what did cause the mould and maggots. It seems you would have clung to the 'spontaneous maggot' theory, for want of something better.

I see what you're trying to say, but no, I don't believe this is comparable.
For one, such a definitive case against the said theory wasn't made. Some of the evidence presented at the trial was called in question. I do agree that a conviction would now be unlikely. However, an unfortunate reality of almost any criminal investigation, and certainly any of this size, is that there is a bunch of evidence that is not admissible in court. The investigators use that to steer them towards the truth. Not all of the said evidence is public.

I will speculate and say that it is fairly likely that there was some intelligence information, illegally obtained or otherwise not admissible in court, that steered the investigation towards Megrahi. This speculation is unprovable in either way, but quite probable, seeing as Megrahi was singled out on rather weak evidence.
There are only two options, that I can see: either the investigators really believed Megrahi was the culprit, or they willingly framed him for some reason. If the former is true, then they very likely had other evidence that showed he was a cultprit, but the evidence was not suitable for courtroom, for whatever reason. For the latter option ... well, let's just say we're in the right forum.

I see what you're trying to say, but no, I don't believe this is comparable.
For one, such a definitive case against the said theory wasn't made. Some of the evidence presented at the trial was called in question. I do agree that a conviction would now be unlikely. However, an unfortunate reality of almost any criminal investigation, and certainly any of this size, is that there is a bunch of evidence that is not admissible in court. The investigators use that to steer them towards the truth. Not all of the said evidence is public.

I will speculate and say that it is fairly likely that there was some intelligence information, illegally obtained or otherwise not admissible in court, that steered the investigation towards Megrahi. This speculation is unprovable in either way, but quite probable, seeing as Megrahi was singled out on rather weak evidence.
There are only two options, that I can see: either the investigators really believed Megrahi was the culprit, or they willingly framed him for some reason. If the former is true, then they very likely had other evidence that showed he was a cultprit, but the evidence was not suitable for courtroom, for whatever reason. For the latter option ... well, let's just say we're in the right forum.

McHrozni

There is a third option, and one that we all succumb to at times, from individuals to the most powerful nations - they were driven by a desire to put an end to a vile situation. They self-deluded.

I see what you're trying to say, but no, I don't believe this is comparable.
For one, such a definitive case against the said theory wasn't made. Some of the evidence presented at the trial was called in question. I do agree that a conviction would now be unlikely. However, an unfortunate reality of almost any criminal investigation, and certainly any of this size, is that there is a bunch of evidence that is not admissible in court. The investigators use that to steer them towards the truth. Not all of the said evidence is public.

I will speculate and say that it is fairly likely that there was some intelligence information, illegally obtained or otherwise not admissible in court, that steered the investigation towards Megrahi. This speculation is unprovable in either way, but quite probable, seeing as Megrahi was singled out on rather weak evidence.

You will speculate? What's the point of speculating, when you can read the evidence and find out? Everything you're "speculating" about is in the public domain and quite easy to read up on. If you think Giaka was telling the truth, you could maybe explain why?

I'd hoped for better from you, McHrozni. I hoped you were going to argue a case based on evidence and facts, not speculation. I'd hoped we were going to get beyond "the police never charge an innocent man" or "the court convicted, therefore he must have done it".

The only other JREF poster who was prepared to say he would defend Megrahi's guilt based on the evidence was Longtabber PE. It turned out that his "evidence" was simply a belief that the authorities had framed the right guy. He was outed as a fantasist and wannabee two weeks later by Joey Donuts, and he hasn't posted since.

I thought we were going to get some sensible discussion here, but it's not looking promising.

Originally Posted by McHrozni

There are only two options, that I can see: either the investigators really believed Megrahi was the culprit, or they willingly framed him for some reason. If the former is true, then they very likely had other evidence that showed he was a cultprit, but the evidence was not suitable for courtroom, for whatever reason. For the latter option ... well, let's just say we're in the right forum.

We may be in the right forum, but you're in the wrong thread. Could we poease get back to the evidence relating to the clothes purchase in Malta? There are other threads for more general speculation.

Rolfe.

__________________"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

There is a third option, and one that we all succumb to at times, from individuals to the most powerful nations - they were driven by a desire to put an end to a vile situation. They self-deluded.

This would be the case where they really believed he was the culprit, but had no other evidence but what was presented to the court or is otherwise publicly available. I stated that as an unlikely possibility.

It is not impossible, that much is true. Again, a speculation, unfortunately. Maybe we'll know more in 30 years.

Could we poease get back to the evidence relating to the clothes purchase in Malta?

Don't you think there is little else to say on the matter? You acted as a good lawyer would, and seeded doubt in that testimony. I don't regard it as reliable, no one sensible does, but that's where the debate ends. An unreliable testimony could still be correct, but it could be wrong. In no way should you interpret an unreliable testimony as automatically wrong. That's why I keep pulling other issues in the debate, since if that testimony was accurate, other points of the puzzle would fall into place - and they do fall into place on many occasions.

There is no evidence the "bomb" originated in Malta. There is somewhat highly disputed and inconsistent evidence that the clothes may have originated in Malta, but again I reiterate, there is no evidence whatsoever [NONE] that the "bomb" originated in Malta.

To be fair, good sir, the clothing almost certainly came from Malta at some point, per the tags ans stickers and matching Maltese factory records. And there is evidence (the printout, as read) of a (bomb?) bag originating in Malta, which I at least find highly dubious (the paper AND the reading). And if one acepts some vague notion of massive evidence against Megrahi, who was on Malta at the airport at just that time, it would seem pretty good. Which is why we go one step at a time here.

Otherwise, little progess on addressing the issue of this thread.

McHrozni, have you examined the evidence presented in this thread by your fellow members?

To remain briefly off-topic:

Quote:

I will speculate and say that it is fairly likely that there was some intelligence information, illegally obtained or otherwise not admissible in court, that steered the investigation towards Megrahi. This speculation is unprovable in either way, but quite probable, seeing as Megrahi was singled out on rather weak evidence.
There are only two options, that I can see: either the investigators really believed Megrahi was the culprit, or they willingly framed him for some reason. If the former is true, then they very likely had other evidence that showed he was a cultprit, but the evidence was not suitable for courtroom, for whatever reason. For the latter option ... well, let's just say we're in the right forum.

In fact, the usually inadmissable intelligence was named Giaka. We don't have a dedicated thread for him, and I doubt you'd read it. He first mentioned both accused, the suitcase at the airport, JSO reports on bombing planes, TNT in a desk drawer, and other greats that originally formed the whole skeleton of the case. He was admitted as evidence after all, and the judges dismissed almost all of it as probably fabricated for money. They were right, of course. Hope that helps.

Don't you think there is little else to say on the matter? You acted as a good lawyer would, and seeded doubt in that testimony. I don't regard it as reliable, no one sensible does, but that's where the debate ends. An unreliable testimony could still be correct, but it could be wrong. In no way should you interpret an unreliable testimony as automatically wrong. That's why I keep pulling other issues in the debate, since if that testimony was accurate, other points of the puzzle would fall into place - and they do fall into place on many occasions.

WHY don't you think the doubt over Gauci's testimony is legitimate?

You're hand-waving, McHrozni. "No one sensible." Have you done a poll? Have you talked to Professor Black, or Dr. Kochler, or even Dr. Swire, about the matter?

Has it completely escaped your attention that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission thought the doubts over Gauci's testimony are extremely well-founded? I'll quote it again.

Quote:

New evidence not heard at the trial concerned the date on which the Christmas lights were illuminated in the area of Sliema in which Mary’s House is situated. In the Commission’s view, taken together with Mr Gauci’s evidence at trial and the contents of his police statements, this additional evidence indicates that the purchase of the items took place prior to 6 December 1988. In other words, it indicates that the purchase took place at a time when there was no evidence at trial that the applicant was in Malta.

Do you class the SCCRC as "no one sensible" - they thought the doubts were well founded, after an investigation lasting three years.

So instead of handwaving, how about explaining why you think Gauci's identification is reliable - or even probably reliable.

Rolfe.

__________________"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

You misunderstood. I do think the doubt over his testimony is legitimate, here:I don't regard [the testimony] as reliable, no one sensible [regards the testimony] as reliable, but that's where the debate ends.

The testimony, however, is just one part of evidence, and is in agreement with other parts. As such, it's damaged credibility is somewhat restored.